What you're really saying is that you'd love to see every single athlete in professional sports 'nailed' and professional sports killed off because of it because, in effect, that's what would happen. I actually don't have a problem with that but let's be honest: Lance is only the target because he's a) successful and b) not French, and c) retired.

I think he is a target because of the way he always attacks his accusers, and the strength and language of his denials. He will have no credibility left if it is proven this time.

What you're really saying is that you'd love to see every single athlete in professional sports 'nailed' and professional sports killed off because of it because, in effect, that's what would happen. I actually don't have a problem with that but let's be honest: Lance is only the target because he's a) successful and b) not French, and c) retired.

Let's have reality check here. First, it is an American authority that is pursuing Lance. Are they supposed to be French puppets?

Now, let's see the latest news on the excellent French site "cyclisme et dopage":

- Contador's conviction for doping means Andy Schleck is now winner of the 2010 Tour de France. - Spanish, not retired.
- Matias Medici banned for two years for taking EPO. - Argentinian, not that successful, not retired.
- Jeanny Longo (53, woman) is hiding from the french doping authorities, despite being part of the French team for the Olympic Games. - French, incredibly successful, not retired.

No sign of any anti-American or pro-French bias here. No sign of only the retired being pilloried either. I rest my case.

Last edited by FrankZappa; 16.06.2012 at 18:50.
Reason: Contador's not Italian.... thanks dmarkd

If he's proven guilty, great, strip him of his titles and I'll support it - but all you people preparing the bonfires already, just because "everyone knows" and similar reasons, are kind of pathetic!

Well, I not "kind of pathetic", because, as I mentioned above, there is a whole book on the subject that I have read. It has the witty title "LA confidential". It's coauthored by a (London) Sunday Times journalist. I assumed that it was widely read, but apparently it's only available in French. It is based on a long string of interviews with witnesses to Lance's rise. Including his Irish physio, who claims that he asked her to inject him, and not with saline. Of course there is nothing to prove that they are not all lying, hungry for a little publicity and jealous of our hero's stupendous race-winning ability. On the other hand, they might be telling the truth.

Contador has had one of his wins removed, would they retrospectively adjust the other results? But then would they review the second place winner, etc.

Exactly. If they do somehow (and I doubt they will) prove that Armstrong took something then are they going to test the second place guys if they then become the winners of the race? How long to they keep blood/urine samples from these races?

Innocent until proven guilty. Armstrong has been proven innocent so why do various agencies keep targetting him? This has been going on for years, give it up guys and get on with something useful! God knows there's enough doping currently going on with the upcoming Olympics to keep any anti-doping agency happy.

The following 2 users would like to thank Medea Fleecestealer for this useful post:

. . . Of course there is nothing to prove that they are not all lying, hungry for a little publicity and jealous of our hero's stupendous race-winning ability. On the other hand, they might be telling the truth.

They might be telling the truth - and therein lies the crucial issue . . they also might not. These are charges against which it is impossible for Armstrong (or anyone for that matter) to proof his innocence.
There are many many people (and with respect, I believe you are one of them) who want the charges to be true.
Reading and interview with the book`s author, it does state that the one test which showed traces of a positive substance, was introduced during the race and an excemption certificate was provided - crucially AFTER because before the introduction of that test, it was not required.

For what it`s worth, I believe he is an exceptional athlete. If you accpet that he can recover from cancer and win the Tour once, then why not several times? Sport does throw up exceptional talents every now and then, who go on to dominate their event - it`s always the same, build them up and then knock them down.
It may turn out eventually to be true - but until then, the Armstrong haters know no more than anyone else.

__________________Everything will be okay in the end - if it`s not okay, it`s not the end.

Last edited by basher; 17.06.2012 at 21:58.
Reason: source of interview added.

The following 2 users would like to thank basher for this useful post:

Well, I not "kind of pathetic", because, as I mentioned above, there is a whole book on the subject that I have read. It has the witty title "LA confidential". It's coauthored by a (London) Sunday Times journalist. I assumed that it was widely read, but apparently it's only available in French. It is based on a long string of interviews with witnesses to Lance's rise. Including his Irish physio, who claims that he asked her to inject him, and not with saline. Of course there is nothing to prove that they are not all lying, hungry for a little publicity and jealous of our hero's stupendous race-winning ability. On the other hand, they might be telling the truth.

I think it is available in English under the title "From Lance to Landis". I just looked at AmazonUK and this book seems to be the same as the French LA Confidential. Quite a lot of reviews, but the most interesting and pertinent to me is the one by Bill McGann. Doping in cycling isn't new, or recent. It's been part of the sport almost since its inception, and you can probably say the same about any other sport you care to name.

This user would like to thank Medea Fleecestealer for this useful post:

I think it is available in English under the title "From Lance to Landis". I just looked at AmazonUK and this book seems to be the same as the French LA Confidential. Quite a lot of reviews, but the most interesting and pertinent to me is the one by Bill McGann. Doping in cycling isn't new, or recent. It's been part of the sport almost since its inception, and you can probably say the same about any other sport you care to name.

I find it amazing that anyone could complete a Tour de France race without taking drugs. Physical ability and skill is one thing, but that isn't enough to get you through those grueling weeks.

I'm reading Run, Swim, Throw, Cheat - The Science behind drugs in sport by Chris Cooper and there is zero doubt that most of the stand out athletic stars of the past few decades used illegal performance enhancing techniques to excel.

Where there's a will and desire to win and money and prestige is at stake, people will find a way to get ahead. Whatever it takes. Is Armstrong guilty? I have no clue, but his performances were so amazing that it deserves the publicity being given to the investigation. If he knows that he cheated, then he has to live with that and not keep on using his cancer as a smokescreen.

__________________Crash your karma into little bits of happiness

The following 3 users would like to thank Assassin for this useful post:

I find it amazing that anyone could complete a Tour de France race without taking drugs. Physical ability and skill is one thing, but that isn't enough to get you through those grueling weeks.....

Well it seems that are saying that cycling the Tour is not physically possible without drugs, therefore everyone who has ever completed it must have been on drugs. I`m not sure you really mean that do you?
Let`s forget Lance Armstrong for now and take all the riders in the last Tour who were drug free - I believe that most of them were.
Let them ride the Tour and eventually someone is going to win - now let`s just say that the same person wins again the following year and also the year after that - simply because they have that something extra - more will to push further and all round riding strengths - even better cardivascular quality. That rider is then going to come under suspicion for being better than the rest - considerably better.
So even if you could guarantee all the riders being drug free - someone is still going to win.
I guess I am always surprised to hear so many people say that to do the Tour without drugs is not possible.
I did one week of the biggest Pyrenean climbs of the Tour - it almost killed me but I did it. The point is, I am not a trained athlete, I was on a mountian bike with an 12kg rucksack on my back.

__________________Everything will be okay in the end - if it`s not okay, it`s not the end.

It's like dodging taxes or taking heroin ... because many get away with it, we should stop trying to catch those who are doing it, right?

Well, no, not in my book.

IMHO, Lance has been taking every drug he thought that he could get away with since always and swearing blind at the same time that he was clean. See the fine book "LA confidential", for a start. I'd love to see him nailed.

how do you explain his passing hundreds of tests and never once was anything found? I do not know if he is clean or not 100% so I am leaning to the side of innocence until proven otherwise

I don't think cleaning up professional sports needs to result in killing professional sports. In my mind doping really takes away from my enjoyment as a spectator...I don't want to glorify something that is chemically enhanced, and I can't understand how winning something with the external help can result in any sense of pride. I'd like to see more integrity in cycling specifically.

I agree that testing needs to be consistent though. I have a friend in track and field and he was saying (like others here) that it is more common than people think and there is a surprising amount of pressure on athletes to dope. He reminded me of the human aspect, you know, putting food on the table and making sure your bills can get paid.

That said, I don't think Lance had these kinds of worries and I'd also like to see him get busted. I'd like to see the cycling become clean overall.

how do you explain his passing hundreds of tests and never once was anything found? I do not know if he is clean or not 100% so I am leaning to the side of innocence until proven otherwise

It's an arms race, like computer security. Better drugs/techniques are being developed every day; counter measures, including time to develop detection tests, comes after. Sometimes a lot later.

I remember reading claims that tests done on 6 year old samples from Amstrong tested positive with new tests. Why was this not detected 6 years before? Because apparently the tests did not exist back then!

It's an arms race, like computer security. Better drugs/techniques are being developed every day; counter measures, including time to develop detection tests, comes after. Sometimes a lot later.

I remember reading claims that tests done on 6 year old samples from Amstrong tested positive with new tests. Why was this not detected 6 years before? Because apparently the tests did not exist back then!